Discussion: 2004 Rocky Mountain 1000 Day
in: Orienteering; General
Sep 17, 2003 8:52 PM
#
I've posted the correct dates and a basic schedule for next year's 1000 Day at the 1000 Day web site. Home page is at: http://www.geocities.com/Colosseum/Stadium/7418
Click on the appropriate link for the schedule.
Click on the appropriate link for the schedule.
Sep 22, 2003 7:44 AM
#
Mikell,
The 1000 day schedule looks great!
I also read your comments on the US Champs and I think they are pretty accurate. I agree with you that the mapper did a pretty good job of mapping, given the extremely vague/patchy/varied vegetation. (And the mapping of dot knolls, pits, & tree features seemed pretty random as to what would and would not make the map… but if you figure that out on the model event, it’s still usable.) I wouldn’t be surprised if the terrain was chosen for mapping based upon the fairly good and fast areas nearby the start-finish...
The fact that I, probably the slowest guy on the US team, could make 15-18 minutes of mistakes on Day 1 alone, and still finish 3rd is a sign of very 'demanding' navigation, and map interpretation. Usually I need to run especially clean to place well...
I don't know if, at a walk, it would have been possible to nail every bag at Fallen Leaf. Maybe. I hear you jogged pretty slowly on Day 2. Was the map fully readable then?
Based on the training day, and my 5 days of Burton Creek (N. Lake Tahoe) experience, I took much more careful compass and pace attacks than I normally do (sometimes even sighting multiple trees, e.g. on the long attack to 11...). Even with that I still missed on several controls, but I generally knew where I was and relocated fairly quickly.
Plus there was almost certainly a bit of luck, rarely with people to lead me in, but moreso with more-precise-than-usually-possible bearings. On Day 1 #6 for example, I hit the trails above the control, went to the end, and took a precise compass/pace down to the circle. About halfway through the pace count, I began thinking "what the heck patch of green is what?", but I kept on the line and popped through a tree to see the bag just in front of me.
On at least one of the later pits too, a precise bearing led me straight to the bag, but I'm pretty sure that ~2 degrees off either way (well under my normal tolerance) would have made it very difficult to spot the bag (or pit feature.) (With Dan S-H's new compass I probably would have missed then all :)
Fortunately on most of the several controls where I missed the bag, the Burton Creek underbrush/clearing interpretation experience helped in relocation.
I look forward to running in the Team Trials at the RMOC 1000 day next year, where physical fitness and the ability to quickly navigate through much clearer terrain are likely to play a much stronger part in the results. Now, if only I get 10% faster by next summer...
- Wyatt
The 1000 day schedule looks great!
I also read your comments on the US Champs and I think they are pretty accurate. I agree with you that the mapper did a pretty good job of mapping, given the extremely vague/patchy/varied vegetation. (And the mapping of dot knolls, pits, & tree features seemed pretty random as to what would and would not make the map… but if you figure that out on the model event, it’s still usable.) I wouldn’t be surprised if the terrain was chosen for mapping based upon the fairly good and fast areas nearby the start-finish...
The fact that I, probably the slowest guy on the US team, could make 15-18 minutes of mistakes on Day 1 alone, and still finish 3rd is a sign of very 'demanding' navigation, and map interpretation. Usually I need to run especially clean to place well...
I don't know if, at a walk, it would have been possible to nail every bag at Fallen Leaf. Maybe. I hear you jogged pretty slowly on Day 2. Was the map fully readable then?
Based on the training day, and my 5 days of Burton Creek (N. Lake Tahoe) experience, I took much more careful compass and pace attacks than I normally do (sometimes even sighting multiple trees, e.g. on the long attack to 11...). Even with that I still missed on several controls, but I generally knew where I was and relocated fairly quickly.
Plus there was almost certainly a bit of luck, rarely with people to lead me in, but moreso with more-precise-than-usually-possible bearings. On Day 1 #6 for example, I hit the trails above the control, went to the end, and took a precise compass/pace down to the circle. About halfway through the pace count, I began thinking "what the heck patch of green is what?", but I kept on the line and popped through a tree to see the bag just in front of me.
On at least one of the later pits too, a precise bearing led me straight to the bag, but I'm pretty sure that ~2 degrees off either way (well under my normal tolerance) would have made it very difficult to spot the bag (or pit feature.) (With Dan S-H's new compass I probably would have missed then all :)
Fortunately on most of the several controls where I missed the bag, the Burton Creek underbrush/clearing interpretation experience helped in relocation.
I look forward to running in the Team Trials at the RMOC 1000 day next year, where physical fitness and the ability to quickly navigate through much clearer terrain are likely to play a much stronger part in the results. Now, if only I get 10% faster by next summer...
- Wyatt
Sep 23, 2003 12:27 AM
#
Wyatt,
I didn't say the mapping was good. The gist of my comments was that the mapping was weak. What I did say was that it is was the type of area that would have been quite tough to map well. I'm glad it wasn't my job. I heard secondhand that this was a very, very expensive map, and if so, too bad.
Unfortunately, the style of course setting accentuated the weaknesses of the mapping. It didn't have to be that way and the map could have supported reasonable courses. Steve Tarry's observation comes to mind: "If you don't like the map, blame the course setter; if you don't like the course, blame the mapper."
Many people have completely lost sight of what the whole point of a map is. At heart, it's a tool for navigation, essentially a schematic diagram of the things in a particular forest relevant to a (racing) orienteer. Our maps have become increasingly extreme and one result of that has been the trend of enlarging map scales. By and large the view seems to be "the more detail the better" and that as long as that detail is accurately located, then you have a good map. Another direct consequence is that the costs for mapping have risen hugely.
There is an unwillingness to simply accept the fact that some areas are more detailed and some areas are quite bland. Instead, blander areas (even detailed areas, actually) become subject to mapping of micro-detail and stuff that should never be on the map. From the racer's viewpoint it just adds clutter and makes the map more difficult to use--a direct contradiction of the ultimate purpose of a map! As details increase in number and decrease in size, it becomes ever harder to know what can be relied on.
A large percentage of the point features mapped at Fallen Leaf weren't useful for navigation at any speed. For an awful lot of the Blue controls the best tactic was to go as fast as possible until you were near the control circle, trust that the circle was accurately centered on the control, and then to go as carefully as possible towards the circle center and look for the control with crossed fingers. By "control" of course I mean the nylon bag itself. You had no hope of spotting an actual pit, for example, some of which weren't even large enough to fully contain the control marker.
The Day 2 courses were much easier than the Day 1 courses, and that's mostly because a lot of the controls were in that 1 km2 or so section of the forest that was relatively nice and open. Take half the blue controls down there and set them up somewhere higher up on the steeper slopes, and Day 2 would have been just as bad as Day 1.
You know, there are these things called IOF Mapping Norms, and it wouldn't be a bad idea for folks to look at them once in a while. No map is ever going to follow all the norms perfectly and of course no map is going to end up being perfect either. That's just the nature of mapping. Still, as an example, the norms do specify some minimum dimensions. Rocks and dot knolls are supposed to be at least a meter high, and pits at least a meter deep. None of the pits or dot knolls that I saw were even close (with the possible exception of Day 2 Blue #6), and I looked at a lot of them.
7 of 17 boulders we had for controls were *described* as being under 1m in height, and you might think that would give someone pause. Of the boulders described as being 1m high or just over, well, I looked over those too, and all I can say is that those were pretty generous heights--kind of like the heights basketball players list on their resumes. (Hey, I'm practically 6' tall myself!) And it's not as if any of these features stood out distinctly in the terrain despite failing to meet minimum dimensions.
If those are the kind of standards folks want to use and if that's the way the sport drifts, well, then fine. But that's not in accordance with the standards as they are written today, and I think it's a bad, bad mistake to continue further down that path. My opinion only; others are bound to disagree.
As for the 1000 Day next year, I hope that *everyone* trains hard and comes to the start line 10% faster. That way maybe we can at least push Dan S-H, who tells me his condition level is already well above where it was for the Ash Fest, and that he is going to be a rip snortin' beast ready to take on all comers by the time the 1000 Day arrives--an attitude I admire!
--Mikell
I didn't say the mapping was good. The gist of my comments was that the mapping was weak. What I did say was that it is was the type of area that would have been quite tough to map well. I'm glad it wasn't my job. I heard secondhand that this was a very, very expensive map, and if so, too bad.
Unfortunately, the style of course setting accentuated the weaknesses of the mapping. It didn't have to be that way and the map could have supported reasonable courses. Steve Tarry's observation comes to mind: "If you don't like the map, blame the course setter; if you don't like the course, blame the mapper."
Many people have completely lost sight of what the whole point of a map is. At heart, it's a tool for navigation, essentially a schematic diagram of the things in a particular forest relevant to a (racing) orienteer. Our maps have become increasingly extreme and one result of that has been the trend of enlarging map scales. By and large the view seems to be "the more detail the better" and that as long as that detail is accurately located, then you have a good map. Another direct consequence is that the costs for mapping have risen hugely.
There is an unwillingness to simply accept the fact that some areas are more detailed and some areas are quite bland. Instead, blander areas (even detailed areas, actually) become subject to mapping of micro-detail and stuff that should never be on the map. From the racer's viewpoint it just adds clutter and makes the map more difficult to use--a direct contradiction of the ultimate purpose of a map! As details increase in number and decrease in size, it becomes ever harder to know what can be relied on.
A large percentage of the point features mapped at Fallen Leaf weren't useful for navigation at any speed. For an awful lot of the Blue controls the best tactic was to go as fast as possible until you were near the control circle, trust that the circle was accurately centered on the control, and then to go as carefully as possible towards the circle center and look for the control with crossed fingers. By "control" of course I mean the nylon bag itself. You had no hope of spotting an actual pit, for example, some of which weren't even large enough to fully contain the control marker.
The Day 2 courses were much easier than the Day 1 courses, and that's mostly because a lot of the controls were in that 1 km2 or so section of the forest that was relatively nice and open. Take half the blue controls down there and set them up somewhere higher up on the steeper slopes, and Day 2 would have been just as bad as Day 1.
You know, there are these things called IOF Mapping Norms, and it wouldn't be a bad idea for folks to look at them once in a while. No map is ever going to follow all the norms perfectly and of course no map is going to end up being perfect either. That's just the nature of mapping. Still, as an example, the norms do specify some minimum dimensions. Rocks and dot knolls are supposed to be at least a meter high, and pits at least a meter deep. None of the pits or dot knolls that I saw were even close (with the possible exception of Day 2 Blue #6), and I looked at a lot of them.
7 of 17 boulders we had for controls were *described* as being under 1m in height, and you might think that would give someone pause. Of the boulders described as being 1m high or just over, well, I looked over those too, and all I can say is that those were pretty generous heights--kind of like the heights basketball players list on their resumes. (Hey, I'm practically 6' tall myself!) And it's not as if any of these features stood out distinctly in the terrain despite failing to meet minimum dimensions.
If those are the kind of standards folks want to use and if that's the way the sport drifts, well, then fine. But that's not in accordance with the standards as they are written today, and I think it's a bad, bad mistake to continue further down that path. My opinion only; others are bound to disagree.
As for the 1000 Day next year, I hope that *everyone* trains hard and comes to the start line 10% faster. That way maybe we can at least push Dan S-H, who tells me his condition level is already well above where it was for the Ash Fest, and that he is going to be a rip snortin' beast ready to take on all comers by the time the 1000 Day arrives--an attitude I admire!
--Mikell
Sep 23, 2003 5:49 AM
#
feet:
A lot of abuse has been thrown at the mapper and course setter for the 'Nightmare at Fallen Leaf Lake'. As one who deliberately mp'ed on day 1 out of disgust with my run, I would probably be qualified to participate in this satisfying sport (O-pprobrium, perhaps?) But I think actually some of those who lost 10+ minutes on controls and are blaming the map and the control placement might do better to look in the reflection of their CRT (LCD if they're richer) monitor and think about their own technique.
Like Wyatt mentions, accurate bearings and pace-counting were indeed a helpful technique. How many controls did it take to realize this? My guess is about 5 or 6 (the technique in the first 2-3 legs and on leg 5 could rely a bit more on fine detail reading - the map wasn't bad in the area where 1-2-5 were). Speaking only for myself, I was certainly not doing this at the places I lost the majority of my time (11 and 12). Now maybe the map wasn't 100% perfect near 11 (my personal guess from how much better everything seemed to fit when I relocated from the NE was that the mapper had done all his fieldwork attacking from the trail on that side too). But did I need to make a 20 minute mistake? No, better technique relocating, or still better, better technique with a better pace count and sense of height gain into the control would have served me a lot better. I suspect others might also find they too were using the wrong technique for the map, at which point they came a cropper (as we say where I'm from...). In fact I adapted by day 2, and witness the better run (including in the thicker, day 1-like areas).
I think those who won at Fallen Leaf Lake were those who used the map best, and isn't that who should be winning an orienteering competition?
I've started training harder already (29 weeks to Easter), but if Dan's going to be that frightening at the 1000 Day then maybe I'll have to think of somewhere more relaxing to orienteer next summer (Kazakhstan, perhaps? oh wait...)
Like Wyatt mentions, accurate bearings and pace-counting were indeed a helpful technique. How many controls did it take to realize this? My guess is about 5 or 6 (the technique in the first 2-3 legs and on leg 5 could rely a bit more on fine detail reading - the map wasn't bad in the area where 1-2-5 were). Speaking only for myself, I was certainly not doing this at the places I lost the majority of my time (11 and 12). Now maybe the map wasn't 100% perfect near 11 (my personal guess from how much better everything seemed to fit when I relocated from the NE was that the mapper had done all his fieldwork attacking from the trail on that side too). But did I need to make a 20 minute mistake? No, better technique relocating, or still better, better technique with a better pace count and sense of height gain into the control would have served me a lot better. I suspect others might also find they too were using the wrong technique for the map, at which point they came a cropper (as we say where I'm from...). In fact I adapted by day 2, and witness the better run (including in the thicker, day 1-like areas).
I think those who won at Fallen Leaf Lake were those who used the map best, and isn't that who should be winning an orienteering competition?
I've started training harder already (29 weeks to Easter), but if Dan's going to be that frightening at the 1000 Day then maybe I'll have to think of somewhere more relaxing to orienteer next summer (Kazakhstan, perhaps? oh wait...)
Sep 23, 2003 3:57 PM
#
It looks like,all three of you(Wyatt,Mikell and Will) are bringing up the exact issues, that needed to be disscused about the US Champs and I have to say that I have almost the same thoughts about the Fallen Leaf Champs as you guys, altough not that elaborated as yours.My coment to this disscution(even if it started on a diff. issue),is that even if I agree with Will 100%( as of how a good orienteer should be able to figure out the right technique on any reasonablly good map/terrain) and since I have been orienteering for manny years at elite level in Europe, before I moved to US I had the occassions and the ameazment to see how it was actualy done by the top orienteers in the world,when on occassion they had to compete against east European decent competition on their turf, on sometimes questionable maps(quality&fairness), but they would still come on top even they were not familiar with that type of terrain,just because after getting a little taste of it they were able to addapt the technique of navigation to what it needed to be for any given area/map.
On the other hand, Mikell's comment comes on top,just because,as he mentioned(on his site),we should not be comming to a major event, nonetheless a US Championship and face this issue and also even if I agree with Will that who used the map, the best, won, also it was a lot of just pure luck involved there as well, which is also acceptable but the whole thing as it was at Fallen Leaf becomes largelly subjective and the fairnes questionable.
On the other hand, Mikell's comment comes on top,just because,as he mentioned(on his site),we should not be comming to a major event, nonetheless a US Championship and face this issue and also even if I agree with Will that who used the map, the best, won, also it was a lot of just pure luck involved there as well, which is also acceptable but the whole thing as it was at Fallen Leaf becomes largelly subjective and the fairnes questionable.
Sep 23, 2003 11:51 PM
#
I want to comment on Will's statement about adapting to the terrain (I am not commenting on the map quality, CP placement, etc.since I wasn't at this event). I agree with Will. Often in orienteering the terrain, map, course, etc. are not what one was expecting and often people do not adapt quickly enough. A recent example of this was the very challenging start to the SVO 'A' meet short course. I expected bland French Creek type hillsides. What we got was a shot gun blast of boulders, cliffs, etc. right at the start (more like Harriman). It took me several checkpoints to adapt. Then we went into the bland stuff (quick, adapt again). The quicker a person adapts the more likely they will do well overall. I prefer that challenge since a Championship should test to see who is the best on that day! However, given that almost all of our Championships are two-day events on the same map (often criss-crossing areas used on Day#1) I believe the advantage on one's 'ability to adapt' is reduced. Day#2 people know what to do and the challenge becomes more of an execution of the same technique learned on Day#1. I know this thread isn't discussing this (or the US Champs either by it's title) but when I read Will's comment it struck me that North America should consider holding more one-day Champs races (ie., 1 day long, 1 day short, etc. etc.) for the elite categories. A Championship weekend could be 3 days of races of different lengths (I believe North America is the only place in the World that uses a two-day total time format).
Sep 24, 2003 4:51 PM
#
For the record, the correct Steve Tarry quote is:
"If you don't like the map, blame the course setter; if your course is too easy, blame the mapper."
Given that, I think the mapper at Fallen Leaf is absolved in this regard (don't take this as an endorsememt by any means, though). But looking at my routes from the US Champs, Day 1 in particular, it all looks very strange. I lost substantial amounts of time, but in no case was I looking in the wrong place. I was repeatedly circling around the correct location, or attacking to the right place several times, unable to see either the invisible feature or the control buried in bushes at ground level. Novel terrain and a need for adaptability of technique are interesting. Controls that can't be seen from a few meters away are not. Different course setting on this same map would have left everyone with a very different impression of the place.
Courses that are clearly too long, as evidenced by the results, are a separate issue.
"If you don't like the map, blame the course setter; if your course is too easy, blame the mapper."
Given that, I think the mapper at Fallen Leaf is absolved in this regard (don't take this as an endorsememt by any means, though). But looking at my routes from the US Champs, Day 1 in particular, it all looks very strange. I lost substantial amounts of time, but in no case was I looking in the wrong place. I was repeatedly circling around the correct location, or attacking to the right place several times, unable to see either the invisible feature or the control buried in bushes at ground level. Novel terrain and a need for adaptability of technique are interesting. Controls that can't be seen from a few meters away are not. Different course setting on this same map would have left everyone with a very different impression of the place.
Courses that are clearly too long, as evidenced by the results, are a separate issue.
Sep 24, 2003 6:39 PM
#
USOF places A event control responsibility solely within the authority of the Sanctioning Committee. The current members of the Sanctioning Committee are Tom Hollowell, Bruce McAlister, Mikell Platt, Paul Regan, Steve Shannonhouse, Julie Weeks, and Bruce Wolfe. The World Ranking event was separately controlled by Scott Donald, IOF Advisor.
(This posting is for information purposes only. It is not meant to give praise, assign blame, or convey the official or unofficial position of the US Team in any way.)
----
The opinions expressed in this message are those of Vladimir only. These opinions do not represent the official position of the U. S. Orienteering Team or the U. S. Orienteering Federation.
(This posting is for information purposes only. It is not meant to give praise, assign blame, or convey the official or unofficial position of the US Team in any way.)
----
The opinions expressed in this message are those of Vladimir only. These opinions do not represent the official position of the U. S. Orienteering Team or the U. S. Orienteering Federation.
Sep 24, 2003 9:20 PM
#
There's a big difference between criticism and abuse, and I disagree with Will's statement that the mapper and course setter for the US Champs have come in for a lot of abuse (in this forum at least.) It's both fair and reasonable to offer up criticism and it is in fact vital for *all* successful organizations to obtain and try to understand feedback, both positive and negative.
Following up on J-J's last point, you can ask yourself whether or not the courses at the recent US Champs were too long, too hard, too easy, too bingo, or some combination thereof. You may wish to consider the following in your own analysis:
On Red Y (including F21), there were 46 starters, 25 finishers, and 2 runners under 3 hours (total 2 day time).
On Red X, there were 47 starters, 30 finishers, and 2 runners under 3 hours.
On Blue, there were 37 starters, 17 finishers, and 0 runners under 3 hours.
On these 3 longest, most advanced courses taken together, 130 runners started, 72 finished (55%), and 4 runners finished in under 3 hours (3%).
Those statistics are telling. Is that the sort of thing the organizers were aiming for? Was it positive for US orienteering? Should future course setters at major US events be designing and setting courses with the goal of having barely over half of the fittest and most technically proficient even finishing their courses?
Those are fair questions and worth thinking about.
"If you don't know where you want to go, you probably aren't going to get there."
--Swampfox
Following up on J-J's last point, you can ask yourself whether or not the courses at the recent US Champs were too long, too hard, too easy, too bingo, or some combination thereof. You may wish to consider the following in your own analysis:
On Red Y (including F21), there were 46 starters, 25 finishers, and 2 runners under 3 hours (total 2 day time).
On Red X, there were 47 starters, 30 finishers, and 2 runners under 3 hours.
On Blue, there were 37 starters, 17 finishers, and 0 runners under 3 hours.
On these 3 longest, most advanced courses taken together, 130 runners started, 72 finished (55%), and 4 runners finished in under 3 hours (3%).
Those statistics are telling. Is that the sort of thing the organizers were aiming for? Was it positive for US orienteering? Should future course setters at major US events be designing and setting courses with the goal of having barely over half of the fittest and most technically proficient even finishing their courses?
Those are fair questions and worth thinking about.
"If you don't know where you want to go, you probably aren't going to get there."
--Swampfox
Sep 25, 2003 5:01 AM
#
Swampfox, thanks for the numbers. They perfectly illustrate what I percieved subjectively. One more statistic I would like to see is a randomness or luck stat, something like how much the results varied one day to the next, and deviated from a normalized list like rankings. (J-man gets credit for this thought if he wants it) I think a properly conducted competition (any sport) should produce results that are within a limited deviation from past performance. Of course results should not be an exact duplication of form, otherwise there is no point in competing, and variety in terrain and tech difficulty should be part of the picture. However the randomizing (luck) factor at these US Champs, especially Saturday, was completely off the charts and unacceptable. This comes from someone who had undeservedly good result (placewise) out of Saturday's chaos, and I am very sympathetic to those who got screwed out of their invested training and air fare, I've been there also.
What I find particularly disturbing is that this course setting was not the result of carelessness or inexperience, but largely by intent of an experienced course setter. The model event and course setter's notes stand as exhibits A and B. Any experienced pair of eyes in the forest should have figured things out. Knee high controls, and features that are -1.0m to +1.0m do not belong anywhere near head high vegetation (mapped or unmapped) when usable support features are "100 - 300m meters" away.
I think that the public reaction at the event was far to mild or "California polite". For the sake of the club (BAOC deserves praise in general) and those competitors who fought for, and earned, good results this is good. I also recognize that it is pscychologically healthy for a competitor to take responsibility, but it is not healthy for the sport to have ego-driven course setting like this go undercriticised, and I think this course setter's performance was deserving of tremendous criticism and if that verges on abuse, I think it is completely deserved, and good for the sport, even if it makes some people uncomfortable in the short term.
What I find particularly disturbing is that this course setting was not the result of carelessness or inexperience, but largely by intent of an experienced course setter. The model event and course setter's notes stand as exhibits A and B. Any experienced pair of eyes in the forest should have figured things out. Knee high controls, and features that are -1.0m to +1.0m do not belong anywhere near head high vegetation (mapped or unmapped) when usable support features are "100 - 300m meters" away.
I think that the public reaction at the event was far to mild or "California polite". For the sake of the club (BAOC deserves praise in general) and those competitors who fought for, and earned, good results this is good. I also recognize that it is pscychologically healthy for a competitor to take responsibility, but it is not healthy for the sport to have ego-driven course setting like this go undercriticised, and I think this course setter's performance was deserving of tremendous criticism and if that verges on abuse, I think it is completely deserved, and good for the sport, even if it makes some people uncomfortable in the short term.
Sep 25, 2003 5:53 AM
#
As another person who did not get to experience the agony and ecstasy of the US Champs, I certainly can't speak from experience. But, as EricW mentioned, from a distance, there were some things that bothered me.
First off - the excessive course lengths. Now, I admit that there are different schools of thought about what "winning" times should be and to what standard (pace) the courses should be directed towards. Obviously, if we calibrate our winning times for a world champion, it's likely that no US person will be within 20%. On Saturday M21, Eric proved his mettle, finishing just that far back (assuming a 90 minute winning classic time), and even better on Sunday to average about 14% back. The next US finisher was just over 16% back for the weekend, and the third, 30% back. If this were the World Champs, times like these may be acceptable, but at the US Champs? Who is this meet for? What is it for? Do 6km Green courses for M60 make sense for a US Champs? I won’t bore anyone analyzing those results, but this and other classes are similarly egregious.
Secondly, the other general issue – variability. I must say, I am not an expert in statistics. However, I do know, in general, one can make a statistical inference with greater confidence in two ways 1) by increasing the sample size 2) by reducing the standard deviation. When testing things like deviations from a proportion or mean, variability is your enemy. In this case, when 30% of people DNF, you can’t compensate with many observations, leading to a situation where the information content of the results is impugned. Actually, in light of the “Tahoe Trample” a move towards one day championships seems ill-advised.
One virtue of the world championship format, is that despite a one-day championship race, the world champion must qualify for his/her team, qualify for the final, and win. These are effectively multiple heats, and from a probabilistic point of view, mean that a gold medal is really hard to achieve. On the other hand, if anyone could show up, and the meet had similar variability, it is not at all certain that the best runner would win. Of course, that variability could be overcome with multiple iterations, but I am quite sure that our Elite friends in Europe and elsewhere wouldn’t stand for these sorts of things and neither should we.
On a related subject, for those who indicate that competitors should adapt their technique to meet the challenge, I ask why they did not do so on Saturday. If the model event was representative of the actual terrain and course setting, should there really have been so many surprises? And you may say that Sunday's relatively better results are because competitors finally figured things out. Well, I'm not sure if this is really what happened (as I didn't have the experience) but it is possible that Sunday was indeed easier. In any case, if a model event is good for anything, it should eliminate surprises. If it didn't, it was flawed. And maybe, Saturday's poor results weren't due to surprise but capriciousness and a course that was just wrong.
First off - the excessive course lengths. Now, I admit that there are different schools of thought about what "winning" times should be and to what standard (pace) the courses should be directed towards. Obviously, if we calibrate our winning times for a world champion, it's likely that no US person will be within 20%. On Saturday M21, Eric proved his mettle, finishing just that far back (assuming a 90 minute winning classic time), and even better on Sunday to average about 14% back. The next US finisher was just over 16% back for the weekend, and the third, 30% back. If this were the World Champs, times like these may be acceptable, but at the US Champs? Who is this meet for? What is it for? Do 6km Green courses for M60 make sense for a US Champs? I won’t bore anyone analyzing those results, but this and other classes are similarly egregious.
Secondly, the other general issue – variability. I must say, I am not an expert in statistics. However, I do know, in general, one can make a statistical inference with greater confidence in two ways 1) by increasing the sample size 2) by reducing the standard deviation. When testing things like deviations from a proportion or mean, variability is your enemy. In this case, when 30% of people DNF, you can’t compensate with many observations, leading to a situation where the information content of the results is impugned. Actually, in light of the “Tahoe Trample” a move towards one day championships seems ill-advised.
One virtue of the world championship format, is that despite a one-day championship race, the world champion must qualify for his/her team, qualify for the final, and win. These are effectively multiple heats, and from a probabilistic point of view, mean that a gold medal is really hard to achieve. On the other hand, if anyone could show up, and the meet had similar variability, it is not at all certain that the best runner would win. Of course, that variability could be overcome with multiple iterations, but I am quite sure that our Elite friends in Europe and elsewhere wouldn’t stand for these sorts of things and neither should we.
On a related subject, for those who indicate that competitors should adapt their technique to meet the challenge, I ask why they did not do so on Saturday. If the model event was representative of the actual terrain and course setting, should there really have been so many surprises? And you may say that Sunday's relatively better results are because competitors finally figured things out. Well, I'm not sure if this is really what happened (as I didn't have the experience) but it is possible that Sunday was indeed easier. In any case, if a model event is good for anything, it should eliminate surprises. If it didn't, it was flawed. And maybe, Saturday's poor results weren't due to surprise but capriciousness and a course that was just wrong.
Sep 25, 2003 6:20 AM
#
I think it is worth noting that courses for important events (World Champs, World Cups, A meets...) generally seek out technical terrain, but the control features and control placement are VERY conservative, visible, and high, the opposite of the Fallen Leaf situation. Lost time here was not just within the circle, but in the center of the circle, where there was no orienreering to be done, just beat the bushes, or hope some else found it while you were there.
It might also be worth noting that I believe we are talking about only the blue, red(s), and possibly green courses. I can't confirm, but some of the courses may have been well done.
It might also be worth noting that I believe we are talking about only the blue, red(s), and possibly green courses. I can't confirm, but some of the courses may have been well done.
Sep 25, 2003 5:34 PM
#
If the model event was representative of the actual terrain and course setting, should there really have been so many surprises?
They also said the EWT was around 80 for 11.5K, and that the model was "greener" than the race terrain. So in some sense, it was easy to discount the model. The model did show some dubious (IMHO) veg and contour mapping, but I figured if they put a control in areas like that, what can you do about it anyway? I'm not sure of the best way to prepare for or adjust to a control put in bushes where you have no confidence in the bush mapping and feel the contours don't make sense either. In all fairness, I don't have much prior experience in such, so one model wasn't going to prepare me one way or the other anyway.
On day 2, I don't recall any bags placed in the real bushy areas. Thats not to say that I found the map/course setting problem free (I had booms day 2 as well), but the nature of the circle selection and bag placement lead to much lower penalties.
They also said the EWT was around 80 for 11.5K, and that the model was "greener" than the race terrain. So in some sense, it was easy to discount the model. The model did show some dubious (IMHO) veg and contour mapping, but I figured if they put a control in areas like that, what can you do about it anyway? I'm not sure of the best way to prepare for or adjust to a control put in bushes where you have no confidence in the bush mapping and feel the contours don't make sense either. In all fairness, I don't have much prior experience in such, so one model wasn't going to prepare me one way or the other anyway.
On day 2, I don't recall any bags placed in the real bushy areas. Thats not to say that I found the map/course setting problem free (I had booms day 2 as well), but the nature of the circle selection and bag placement lead to much lower penalties.
Sep 26, 2003 2:06 AM
#
walk:
EricW - Add the Brown course to your list. My wife lost an hour at one control on Day 2, one of Mikell's favorite pits. We went back after - the pit was not visible while standing 5m away, it was next to the smallest downed tree in the area and the only one mapped, large tree stumps in the area were unmapped while the small one at the control was. With the bag buried in the pit, it would be invisible except for the lucky. She wandered around with a large contingent of others before one stumbled on it from a different direction. Did I mention Bingo!
Sep 26, 2003 3:47 AM
#
EricW>...deviated from a normalized list like rankings....
Congratulations to Eric Bone, who picked up 1196 WRE points, which appears to be an all-time record for an American, and a world-class score.
Remember the long thread about signing up for the WRE or not? Well, it doesn't seem to have mattered at all (especially for F21, which had only 2 "ranked runners.")
http://www.6prog.org/iof/wre_res$.asp?ID=550&how=F
It looks like even the people who didn't sign up for the WRE were submitted. Thus officially singing up for the WRE only made a difference if you were in M21 and ran between 180:01 and about 198:00 or so. In that case, if you paid the $5 you got an embarrassingly few WRE points, otherwise you got a dsq/rtd and 0 points for being OVT.
Congratulations to Eric Bone, who picked up 1196 WRE points, which appears to be an all-time record for an American, and a world-class score.
Remember the long thread about signing up for the WRE or not? Well, it doesn't seem to have mattered at all (especially for F21, which had only 2 "ranked runners.")
http://www.6prog.org/iof/wre_res$.asp?ID=550&how=F
It looks like even the people who didn't sign up for the WRE were submitted. Thus officially singing up for the WRE only made a difference if you were in M21 and ran between 180:01 and about 198:00 or so. In that case, if you paid the $5 you got an embarrassingly few WRE points, otherwise you got a dsq/rtd and 0 points for being OVT.
Sep 26, 2003 4:11 AM
#
For the WRE on 13 September 2003, the results were initially not submitted by BAOC but rather gathered by the IOF from the web. As it is uncommon for European races to separate WRE and non-WRE on the same course, points were calculated for all attendees. After that, the official results were sent to the IOF. They should appear on the IOF site soon (I would think after the next run of scores is done this coming weekend).
Apparently most of the criticism that is floating around (and has been before the event), the confusion about proper WRE procedures, and other concerns have led to a decision that BAOC will not conduct a WRE race in 2004. If you care about WREs you should thank BAOC for their contribution to date to the development of these events, the largest contribution of all USOF clubs. I sincerely hope that BAOC resumes its sponsorship of WRE races in the nearest future.
The reason there are sometimes not enough "ranked runners" is that there are too few WREs held in the USA, and that too few US runners travel overseas to these events.
-----
The opinions expressed in this message are those of Vladimir only. These opinions do not represent the official position of the U. S. Orienteering Team or the U. S. Orienteering Federation.
Apparently most of the criticism that is floating around (and has been before the event), the confusion about proper WRE procedures, and other concerns have led to a decision that BAOC will not conduct a WRE race in 2004. If you care about WREs you should thank BAOC for their contribution to date to the development of these events, the largest contribution of all USOF clubs. I sincerely hope that BAOC resumes its sponsorship of WRE races in the nearest future.
The reason there are sometimes not enough "ranked runners" is that there are too few WREs held in the USA, and that too few US runners travel overseas to these events.
-----
The opinions expressed in this message are those of Vladimir only. These opinions do not represent the official position of the U. S. Orienteering Team or the U. S. Orienteering Federation.
This discussion thread is closed.